LSAT Explanation PT 30, S2, Q14: It is inaccurate to say that

LSAT Question Stem

The argument is most parallel, in its logical structure, to which one of the following? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Parallel question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is D. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

First, let's analyze the argument in the passage. The passage is structured as follows:

Premise 1: A diet high in refined sugar can make a person overweight.

Premise 2: Being overweight can predispose a person to adult-onset diabetes.

Conclusion: It is inaccurate to say that a diet high in refined sugar cannot cause adult-onset diabetes.

The argument is essentially saying that since A can cause B, and B can cause C, it is not accurate to say that A cannot cause C. Now, let's briefly discuss the question type and what it's asking us to do. This is a Parallel question, which means we need to find an answer choice that has the same logical structure as the argument in the passage.

Now, let's go through each answer choice:

a) This answer choice has a conclusion mismatch. The conclusion in this argument states that being in cold air can cause a person to catch a cold, which is the opposite of the relationship we're looking for. The premises also do not link up like they do in the original argument. Eliminate.

b) This answer choice has a conclusion and premise mismatch. The conclusion is not negated, and the premises include existential quantifiers like "some," which differs from the logic used in the premises in the original argument. Eliminate.

c) This answer choice has a conclusion mismatch. The conclusion is "overfertilization is the primary cause of lawn disease," which is not parallel to the original argument's conclusion. The premises do link up nicely, but the conclusion is not negated and does not have the same relationship between the subjects as the original argument. Eliminate.

d) This answer choice is the correct one. The conclusion matches up nicely: "It is incorrect to say that inferior motor oil cannot cause a car to get poorer gasoline mileage." It is both negated and includes the same relationship between the subjects as the original argument. The premises also link up the same way as in the original argument: "inferior motor oil can cause engine valve deterioration" and "engine valve deterioration can lead to poorer gasoline mileage."

e) This answer choice has a conclusion mismatch. The conclusion is negated, but there is not the same relationship between the two subjects as in the original argument. Eliminate.

So, the correct answer is D, as it has the same logical structure as the argument in the passage.